Access of Urban Farmers to Land, Water and Inputs for Urban Agriculture in Dodoma Municipality, Tanzania

Vol. 7(1), pp. 31-40, January 2015 DOI: 10.5897/JASD2014.0302 Article Number: E7B49FE49310 Journal of African Studies and ISSN 2141 -2189 Copyright © 2015 Development Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournlas.org/JASD

Full Length Research Paper

Access of urban farmers to land, water and inputs for urban agriculture in Dodoma municipality, Tanzania

Baltazar M.L. Namwata1*, Idris S. Kikula2 and Peter A. Kopoka3

1Department of Development Finance and Management Studies, Institute of Rural Development Planning (IRDP), Dodoma, Tanzania. 2Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, School of Social Sciences, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, the University of Dodoma (UDOM), Dodoma, Tanzania. 3Department of Political Science and Public Administration, School of Social Sciences, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, the University of Dodoma (UDOM), Dodoma, Tanzania.

Received 23 September, 2014; Accepted 8 December, 2014

This paper examines the access of urban farmers to land, water and inputs for urban agriculture (UA) towards household food security, employment creation and income generation in Dodoma municipality. A cross-sectional survey was employed involving 300 urban farmers from both squatter and non- squatter settlements. Structured questionnaires, focus group discussions, key informants, observations and documentary review were used to collect data relevant for the study. Based on the analysis of this study, urban farmers are constrained by land tenure insecurity, erratic water access and inadequate inputs for optimizing plot productivity and ambivalent application of urban legislative frameworks. The study found that no support has been given to urban farmers to enable them to have access to land, water and inputs in order to practice UA. The apparent lack of political will necessary to promote access to land, water and inputs for UA is reflected in weak or absent policy frameworks, resulting in an enormous capacity deficit. Policy makers and planners need information for planning and managing access of urban farmers to land, water and inputs for UA.

Key words: Urban agriculture, urban farmers, access, land, water, inputs.

INTRODUCTION

Mougeot (2006) defines Urban Agriculture (UA) as the agriculture. It takes place in different locations and occurs production of food and non-food plant, tree crops and under varying socio-political conditions and policy animal husbandry both within (intra) and fringing (peri) regimes. This diversity of UA is one of its main attributes, built urban areas for households’ consumption as well as as it can be adapted to a wide range of urban situations for sale to the rapidly growing urban population. It is a and to the needs of a diverse range of stakeholders. dynamic concept that comprises a variety of livelihood According to Oludare and Ademiluyi (2009), UA in varying systems ranging from subsistence production and forms and types is currently a common activity in most processing at household level to fully commercialized urban areas globally as it is found both in the developing

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected].

Authors agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License

32 J. Afr. Stud. Dev.

and developed countries. UA is increasingly considered make the right decisions on accessing land, water and as a means to poverty alleviation in order to improve food inputs to urban farmers for UA in Dodoma municipality. security, to provide employment, food and income to

urban dwellers (Foeken, 2013). UA is in reality and in THE STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY many cases a response to crisis and a coping strategy of the urban poor (Jacobi et al., 2000). Dodoma municipality is traced back to 1973 when it was declared UA in Tanzania is practiced in a generally favourable the National Capital under Presidential Decree No. 320 of 1973. Since then, series of successful events have followed. In 1980 political and legal context. During the 1970s and 1980s, Dodoma municipality was established. In 1995 the Government the national government, faced with a poor economy, shifted Parliamentary activities to Dodoma and has recently been issued policies encouraging people to undertake UA. declared by the Government to be a Centre of Education (DMC, Policies behind this included Siasa in Kilimo (Politics is 2011). Dodoma municipality covers an area of 2,769 square Agriculture) in 1972 and Kilimo cha Umwagiliaji (Irrigated kilometers of which 625 square kilometers are urbanized. Based on Agriculture) in 1974, Kilimo cha Kufa na Kupona the 2012 National Population and Housing Census, the population of Dodoma municipality was 410,956 people of whom 199,487 are (Agriculture for Life and Death) campaign launched by males and 211,469 are females. The estimated total number of the national government in 1974-75, with the aim of households is 107,000 with an average household size of 4.4 increasing food supplies by promoting agri-cultural people (URT, 2013). production in both urban and rural areas and Mvua za Dodoma municipality is administratively divided into one parliamentary constituency, 4 divisions, 37 wards, 100 mitaa1, 39 Kwanza ni Zakupandia (First Rains are for Planting) in 2 1974/75 (Mlozi, 2001; Foeken et al., 2004; Mlozi et al., villages, and 222 hamlets (vitongoji ). The four divisions are Dodoma urban (22 wards), Hombolo (6 wards), Kikombo (3 wards) 2004). Others were the National Economic Survival and Zuzu (6 wards). Dodoma municipality is situated in an Programme (NESP) of 1981/82, the National Food economically depressed area. On average, Dodoma receives 570 Strategy in 1982, the 1983 National Livestock Policy mm of rainfall per annum with temperatures ranging from 16 to (NLP), the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) in 1983, and 36OC with mean temperatures of 29OC (DMC, 2011). Although it the National Economic Recovery Programme (ERP) of has rich agricultural land, it is affected by harsh semi-arid climatic conditions. In the urban areas the main activities of the residents 1986-1990, Agriculture and Livestock Policy of 1997, are commerce, urban farming and civil service employment while in National Human Settlements Development Policy of the rural areas; farming and livestock keeping are the prime means 2000, The Land Use Planning Act, 2007, and The Urban of existence (DMC, 2011). Planning Act of 2007, Urban Farming Regulations of A cross-sectional approach was adopted in this study. According 1992 Tanzania Development Vision (2025), National to Bailey (1994), the design allowed data to be collected at a single Strategy for Growth and Poverty Reduction of 2005/2010, point in time to capture important aspects of this study. The sample size for this study was calculated using the formula for large Kilimo Kwanza strategy (Agriculture First) of 2008, Town samples as modified from Poate and Daplyn (1993): and Country Planning Act of 1956 revised in 1961 (Cap 2 2 378) and many other legislative frameworks (Namwata, Z C n  2 2013; Mlozi, 2003; Foeken et al., 2004; Mlozi et al., 2004; X

Magigi, 2008). Although the importance of UA in urban Where n is the minimum sample size required; Z is 1.96, the value economies is increasingly gaining recognition from local of Z at the 95 percent confidence interval; C is the variation within and international agencies, urban land use planning and the population of urban farmers, which has been assumed to be 50 development policies at the local level have failed to tap percent since no previous studies were found; and X is the adequately into UA as a viable strategy to poverty expected level of accuracy, which has been estimated at 5 percent. The sample size was calculated as: reduction among urban dwellers. Surprisingly, local governments planning processes have looked upon UA 2 2 1 . 96  50  as incompatible with urban development and as a relict 2  384 . 16  384 5 from rural-urban migration that dwindles as cities and urban economies grow. UA has not been given any The estimated size of the sample as per the formula is 384 planning attention, other than restricting it as much as respondents. However, it was decided on a representative sample possible or permitting it only as a temporal use of the of 300 respondents based on the limited available resources (financial, human and time) as shown in Table 1. A four multi-stage sites concerned until urban functions took over its use sampling process was used to select a representative sample for (Namwata, 2013; Arku, 2009; Castillo, 2003; Obuobie et the study. Stage one, a list of four (4) divisions in the municipality al., 2003). In order to promote UA in urban areas and was proposed as a sampling frame for this study. Dodoma municipality in that particular, efforts are needed in order to plan for land, water, inputs and other services 1 Mtaa (Mitaa in plural) is a Swahili word which is used to describe the to support UA as a profitable and sustainable undertaking lowest level of administration in any urban setting of the Local (Namwata, 2013). However, lack of information on land, Government Authority. 2 water, inputs and other services for UA is a common Kitongoji (vitongoji in plural) is a Swahili word which is used to describe the lowest level of administration in any rural setting of the omission by many Local Government Authorities (LGAs) Local Government Authority. in Tanzania. This information will help motivate LGAs to Quantitative data were collected using structured questionnaires.

Namwata et al. 33

In stage two, a list of twenty two (22) wards in Dodoma urban with exception of the problems they encountered in division was obtained and eight (8) wards with significant UA accessing land. Also, overall results in Table 2 show that activities were purposively selected. In stage three, a list of thirty urban farmers carried out their UA activities on residential seven (37) mitaa in the selected wards was obtained and fifteen (15) mitaa as shown in Figure 1 with significant UA activities were plots (34.3%), rented plots (23.1%) and governmental purposely selected. In stage four, primary data were collected from plots (21.3%). Obuobie et al. (2003) suggested that there twelve (12) respondents (urban farmers) from each mtaa using are two main ways by which farmers can gain access to convenience and/or snowball sampling methods (Figure 2). land for farming in both urban and peri-urban areas of In qualitative approach, different types of respondents were Accra. These are the formal and informal access. Though purposively selected to participate in in-depth interviews and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Key informants for in-depth interviews Accra has a formal land delivery system, in the urban were drawn from the municipality, CDA and other actors who have areas, this is more or less closed to agricultural uses. In a stake in UA activities. The key informants were 17 ward executive the peri-urban areas where it is expected to be open to officers, 25 mitaa executive officers, 2 planning officers, 2 extension agricultural uses, the procedure is complex, inordinately officers and 2 land officers from the municipality. Other key long, not appropriately efficient or cost effective (Flynn- informants were 2 land officers from the municipality and 2 officers Dapaah, 2002). The findings of this study are confirmed from Dodoma Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (DUWASA). On the other hand, a total of 8 FGDs were conducted by Mubvami and Mushamba (2008), Al Hudhud (2007) in the study area whereby 96 respondents who were adult and Kyessi (2001) who deduced that land may be community members participated. Data were analyzed using both available but not accessible because of social or political quantitative and qualitative techniques. Qualitative data were reasons. Likewise, Al Hudhud (2007) added that the analyzed through content analysis. Qualitative data were translated usability of available and accessible land is determined and categorized into various themes and sub-themes based on the by factors such as topography, size of plot, soil texture objectives of the study. Subsequently, quantitative data from the questionnaires were coded, summarized and analyzed using the and quality, availability of water and security of tenure. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics Land tenure determines who can use what land and how. were used to obtain frequency counts of various coded responses and Land tenure determines the level of investment that to compare means of quantitative responses of variables. Descriptive urban farmers themselves put into UA activities. The statistics were used for comparison purposes on variables of financial institutions are often not willing to give credit interest for explaining the phenomena. Chi-square test was employed to assess associations between variables on various services to urban farmers as they lack legal rights to land attributes related to UA. Data were analysed by category of and are therefore unable to use it as collateral. In this settlements (squatter and non-squatter) and comparison of respect, as can be deduced from the observation by variables was made by settlement. Kyessi (2001) that the problem of land tenure is the major challenge for UA as a viable long-term source of food and income in urban and peri-urban areas in Tanzania. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Accessibility of urban farmers to land for UA Problems in accessing land for UA activities activities On the other hand, urban farmers encountered a number Accessibility of urban farmers to land for UA in the of problems in accessing land for UA activities (Table 3). context of this paper refers to ownership of land for UA These included unsuitable land (24.3%), shortage of land among farmers. Accessibility relates to the opportunity for (21.3%), lack of money to buy land (18.8%) and high the actual utilization of available land by needy prices of buying land (16.8%). Likewise, overall results households or groups, taking into account administrative show that 59.7% needed an extra land for UA activities. procedures and conflicts that may arise. The accessibility The majority of urban farmers indicated that they are means the availability of land as well as the power to use actively searching for land, and mention to have plans to it. In many cases, the ownership and tenure patterns of borrow from government or relatives, or seek funds to land are not known because of lack of records or frequent buy. According to Smit et al. (2001), in cities around the change of hands; further, land may also be far from world, a vast amount of land is farmed that is neither where farmers live and public transportation and roads officially allocated for that purpose nor reported. Informal could be inadequate or not available so available land or illegal land transactions include usufruct agreements may be too costly for farmers to rent (Namwata, 2013; between landowners and farmers. However, private Flynn-Dapaah, 2002). Table 2 shows distribution of urban landowners often will not lease their land for farming farmers by ownership of land for UA. because of the lack of adequate laws governing tenancy Overall results show that 55.7% indicated that they and lease arrangements. Public landowners may also owned land plots on which they carried out UA activities hesitate to make land available for farming.

with an average size up to 2 acres (44%). All variables on accessibility to land for UA activities among urban Level of security on land for UA activities farmers between the squatter and non-squatter areas were found to be statistically not significant at p>0.05 Findings from focus group discussion revealed that one

34 J. Afr. Stud. Dev.

Table 1. Sampling procedure of respondents (urban farmers).

Sampling procedure No All divisions in the municipality (Dodoma urban, Hombolo, Kikombo and Zuzu) 4 Purposively selected Dodoma urban division since it has significant UA activities 1 All wards in Dodoma urban 22 Purposely selected wards with significant UA activities in Dodoma urban division with both squatter and non-squatter 8 settlements All mitaa in the selected eight (8) wards 37 Purposively selected mitaa with UA activities in the selected wards 15 Convenience and/or snowball sampling methods were employed to select respondents involved in UA activities from 15 12 mitaa Total 300

Figure 1. Map of surveyed mitaa in Dodoma municipality.

Figure 2. Water Bill with words that strictly prohibit the use of tap water for UA

Namwata et al. 35

Table 2. Ownership of Land for UA Activities (N=300).

Area of residence All Squatter Non-squatter Chi-square Variable (n = 300) (n = 119) (n=181) value N % N % N (%) Do you own land for UA activities

Yes 68 57.1 99 54.7 167 (55.7) 0.17ns No 51 42.9 82 45.3 133 (44.3) Average size of land owned by household Up to 2 acres 37 43.0 55 45.5 92 (44.4) 2.1-4 acres 23 26.7 27 22.3 50 (24.2) 2.47ns 4.1-8 acres 11 12.8 11 9.1 22 (10.6) Above 8 acres 10 11.6 17 14.0 27 (13.0) I don’t know 5 5.8 11 9.1 16 (5.3) If not owned, typology of land for UA Rented 17 27.4 22 20.6 39 (23.1) Government plot 16 25.8 20 18.7 36 (21.3) Open space 8 12.9 8 7.5 16 (9.5) 7.13ns Residential 15 24.2 43 40.2 58 (34.3) Commercial and industrial - - 1 0.9 1 (0.6) Along road and streets - - 1 0.9 1 (0.6) Surveyed/unsurveyed plots 6 9.7 12 11.2 18 (10.7)

ns = Non significant (P>0.05), * = Significant at (P< 0.05).

Table 3. Problems in accessing land for UA activities (N=300).

Area of residence All Chi- Squatter Non-squatter square Variable (n = 300) (n = 119) (n=181) value N % N % N (%) Need for more access to land for UA Yes 74 62.2 105 58.0 179 (59.7) 0.52ns No 45 37.8 76 42.0 121 (40.3) Problems in accessing land for UA High prices of land 22 27.8 12 9.8 34 (16.8) Lack of money to buy land 12 15.2 26 21.1 38 (18.8) Lack of information to access land 7 8.9 16 13.0 23 (11.4) Absence of friends - - 2 1.6 2 (1.0) Shortage of land 13 16.5 30 24.4 43 (21.3) 17.59* Uncertainty of land status 3 3.8 3 2.4 6 (3.0) Land grabbing - - 2 1.6 2 (1.0) Unsuitable land for UA 21 26.6 28 22.8 49 (24.3) Conflicts with other urban uses - - 3 2.4 3 (1.5) Urban pressure on land markets 1 1.3 1 0.8 2 (1.0)

ns = Non significant (P>0.05), * = Significant at (P< 0.05).

of the greatest constraints to UA development and growth with other uses that provide greater profit for the is the limited access to land and the lack of secure of landowner (Table 4). tenure on that land, particularly where UAs are competing Observations of this study indicate that many UA

36 J. Afr. Stud. Dev.

Table 4. Land security for UA activities (N=300).

Area of residence All Squatter Non-Squatter Chi- Variable (n = 300) square (n = 119) (n=181) value N % N % N (%) Level of security on land for UA High security 11 12.9 23 17.3 34 (15.6) Medium security 31 36.5 54 40.6 85 (39.0) 4.61ns Low security 25 29.4 23 17.3 48 (22.0) Insecure 18 21.2 33 24.8 51 (23.4)

ns = Non significant (P>0.05), * = Significant at (P< 0.05).

activities were undertaken on open spaces, unsurveyed green pepper) when there is a water source nearby plots and underdeveloped surveyed plots without the (Obuobie, 2003; Flynn-Dapaah, 2002). There exists direct permission or agreement of land owner. Generally, another similar informal arrangement, only in this case an urban farmers had either no or informal arrangements individual or a private organization owns the land. Access with owners of the land they use for UA activities. The to land is either through direct negotiation involving the insecure land-use title and unclear timeframe in which the prospective farmer and the landowner or caretaker, or land can be used makes UA undertaking highly insecure. through the mediation of a third party. This arrangement According to Smit et al. (2001), both landholders and is used both by urban and peri-urban farmers. Household farmers need secure access to and exploitation of a farmers are normally tenants of the houses and cultivate property. Since agricultural use does not have to be the land around it and therefore do not pay for such permanent, landowners’ fears can be assuaged with the cultivation. Some open space farmers pay a token right contractual arrangements. The validity and enforce- depending on the individual landowner. But more often ability of permits, leases, and contracts determines than not individual landowners, like government whether such arrangements will be practice-able. Where agencies, view farming on their land as a way of no arrangements exist, the informality, illegality, and thus preventing encroachment (Obuobie et al., 2003). the precariousness of the activity (eviction is always a possibility) are not conducive to efficient farming. With low tenure security and questionable legality, the farmer Accessing water for UA activities is not motivated either to follow efficient farming practices or to be concerned about the long-term condition of the Water is very important for UA activities. Overall results in land, the need to regenerate the soil, or the impact of the Table 5 show that 54.5% indicated to have not received farming activity on the environment. Such farmers are reliable water supply for UA. The differences on reliability also considered high-risk borrowers by credit agencies. of water supply to urban farmers in both squatter and Furthermore, even urban farmers who own their land non-squatter residential areas were found to be may face problems from zoning laws that prevent them statistically significant at p<0.05. The results of this study from farming. In Kampala, middle- and low-income urban are confirmed by Obuobie et al. (2003) who suggested farmers identify access to land, harassment, and eviction that availability and access to low-cost water for farming as important problems. Farmers may or may not be given in the urban and peri-urban areas of Accra is another key any notice to quit the land to make room for other factor affecting farmers. Water access allows vegetable development. The benefit to landowners is that production in and for the lean season and is crucial for continuous cultivation keeps the land clean of weeds and profit generation. Household farmers use mainly pipe prevents encroachment as well as urban sprawl as the borne water and grey water (water from bathrooms and cultivators provide the on-site enforcement against kitchens); open-space farmers use drain water, streams/ unofficial settlement (Obuobie et al., 2003; Obuobie, rivers, pipe borne water and hand-dug wells, in 2003; Flynn-Dapaah, 2002). This is mostly practiced by decreasing order; peri-urban farmers rely mainly on open-space farmers in the low-density areas of the city. rainfall and streams/rivers. There are no formal These farmers are either engaged in seasonal farming procedures that farmers follow to get water for farming. (growing crops such as maize, tomatoes, pepper, okra, Pipe-borne water is perceived to have the best quality, groundnut etc), relying entirely on rainfall or are engaged but is expensive and therefore unaffordable to many. in irrigated vegetable farming (growing crops such as For those who have a reliable access to water for UA, lettuce, cabbage, cucumber, spring onion, cauliflower, most of them (68.1%) indicated to have used tap water

Namwata et al. 37

Table 5. Access to water for UA activities (N=300).

Area of Residence All Chi-square Squatter Non-Squatter Variable (n = 300) Value (n = 119) (n=181) N % N % N (%) Do you have a reliable source of water?

Yes 33 32.4 84 54.2 117 (45.5) 11.83* No 69 67.6 71 45.8 140 (54.5) Main sources of water for UA Tap water 63 66.3 110 69.2 173 (68.1) Stream/furrow 16 16.8 22 13.8 38 (15.0) Wastewater/stabilization ponds 15 15.8 18 11.3 33 (13.0) 5.55ns Deep and/or shallow wells 1 1.1 9 5.7 10 (3.9) Both deep & shallow wells and 16 16.8 22 13.8 38 (15.0) stream/furrow

ns = Non significant (P>0.05), * = Significant at (P< 0.05).

for UA activities. Generally, it is strictly prohibited by controls, more or less, the portion of the drain or stream DUWASA that tap water supply is for human that is within the span of his farm and regularly maintains consumption and not for UA activities (in Kiswahili: maji water drawing points within the drain or stream for ya DUWASA ni kwa matumizi ya binadamu. Tafadhali fetching water effectively with watering cans. In the wet usiyatumie kwa kilimo) as shown in Figure 2. For season when there is enough water in streams/rivers or household farmers, the houses in which they live are drains, every farmer is free to fetch water from any point usually connected to the water supply system. Though along the drain or stream but there are restrictions in the pipe-borne water supply is meant for drinking, cooking dry season, which sometimes lead to conflicts. Stream/ and other domestic or industrial uses, household farmers river and major drains have continuous flow and farmers may extend it to watering of perishable crops and pay for pay no fee for using the water. it. However, due to the difficulty in meeting the increasing During focus group discussion with farmers, it was domestic and industrial demand, DUWASA, has observed that water is very essential for crop productivity cautioned the public to put a stop to the use of treated as most of them were involved in crop cultivation than water for irrigation purposes. livestock keeping. Most crops have differing critical An official from DUWASA stated that: “Water is not growth periods, and if water stress occurs during critical enough for all household and non-household activities, as stages of growth, yield is directly affected. Some crops the DUWASA water-supply system can hardly keep up are not drought resistant like crops and some drought with the requirements of the increasing population of resistant like maize, sunflower and vegetables. Which are urban dwellers. Access to a reliable tap water is very not commonly grown in the urban setting of the problematic as some areas do not have a tap water municipality. When moisture requirements are not met supply system particularly in squatter areas. So during this critical phase permanent, irreparable damage development and growth of UA will depend on a reliable usually is the result. The crop quality is diminished, or water source and is likely to be limited”. Observation ultimately the crop yield is reduced and hence farmers revealed that some UA farmers used water from streams are affected by and large. As such, urban farmers are or furrows, deep or shallow wells and rainfall for compelled to use any available water at their disposal for undertaking UA. Some urban farmers were found using irrigating their crops. raw wastewater with little consideration for health consequences (Figure 3). Differences between the two settlements in terms of the various sources of water for Accessing inputs for UA activities UA activities were found to be to be statistically not significant at p> 0.05. These findings confirm the work of Foeken et al. (2004) reported three categories of capital Drechsel et al. (2002) who suggested that open-space inputs that can be used for UA activities in Tanzania. The farmers frequently irrigate their crops with polluted first category consists of cultivation inputs directly related surface water. They locate their farms along major drains to the growing process. Some are chemical, such as and streams to access water for irrigation. Each farmer artificial fertilizers and pesticides, and some non-chemical

38 J. Afr. Stud. Dev.

Table 5. Access to water for UA activities (N=300).

Area of Residence All Chi- Squatter Non-Squatter square Variable (n = 300) (n = 119) (n=181) Value N % N % N (%) Do you have a reliable source of water?

ns = Non significant (P>0.05), * = Significant at (P< 0.05).

Figure 3. Swaswa wastewater stabilization pond in Ipagala Ward in 2013.

(traditional), mainly organic (and more environmentally 59% did not use inputs for UA and for those who use it friendly) inputs like manure and crop residues. The they mostly use farm yard manure (55.2%). The second category consists of equipment including hand differences of respondents’ use of various types of inputs tools for farm work such as hoes and machetes, and a between squatter and non-squatter settlements were higher-level technology that includes motorized imple- found to be statistically significant at p< 0.05. It was learnt ments. The third category is money drawn from family that majority of urban farmers indicated to apply farmyard resources or other formal or informal institutions. In the manure (FYM) because it is cheap to use, increases crop context of this study, the first category of cultivation yields for a long time once applied, FYM fertilizes the soil inputs directly related to the growing process was for a longer time and is environmentally friendliness and considered as shown in Table 6. Some were chemical, retaining moisture for longer time in soil. Even those who such as artificial fertilizers and pesticides, and some non- were using other types of inputs apart from farmyard chemical (traditional), mainly organic inputs like manure manure were sourced within the urban limits of the and crop residues. Overall results in Table 6 indicate that municipality. According to Smit et al. (2001), lack of

Namwata et al. 39

Table 61. Access to inputs for UA activities (N=300).

Area of Residence All Chi- Squatter Non-Squatter square Variable (n = 300) (n = 119) (n=181) Value N % N % N (%) Do you use inputs in UA activities

Yes 44 37.0 79 43.6 123 (41.0) 1.32ns No 75 63.0 102 56.4 177 (59.0) Type of inputs used Chemical fertilizer 16 33.3 15 17.4 31 (23.1) Farmyard manure (FYM) 26 54.2 48 55.8 74 (55.2) 15.79* Crop residue 3 6.3 - - 3 (2.2) Chemical insecticides 1 2.1 14 16.3 15 (11.2) Chemical pesticide 2 4.2 9 10.5 11 (8.2) Costs of inputs used in UA (Tshs) Less than 20,000 14 40.0 47 61.8 61 (55.0) 21,000-30,000 8 22.9 13 17.1 21 (18.9) 1.32ns 31,000-40,000 10 28.6 10 13.2 20 (18.0) 41,000-50,000 - - 3 3.9 3 (2.7) Above 50,000 3 8.6 3 3.9 6 (5.4) Aware of the places for getting inputs for UA Yes 16 13.4 38 21.0 54 (18.0) No 103 86.6 143 79.0 246 (82.0) 2.77ns

ns = Non significant (P>0.05), * = Significant at (P< 0.05)

access to farming inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, planners, policy makers and other stakeholders to pesticides, equipment, chicks and heifers, feed, and integrate UA into their urban system design and planning medicine — is another major constraint facing urban so as to address problems for accessing land, water and farmers. These inputs are not readily available in cities inputs for UA. The starting point for this should be policy because the markets and sales channels are either not and planning recognition that UA is central to the developed and organized or are oriented toward rural livelihoods of many urban dwellers and urban farming farmers. Moreover, the limited supplies are of uncertain households. Once this policy recognition is institu- quality. For example, the available seeds may not tionalized, the next step should be improving access of produce high yields. For many poor farmers, the only urban farmers to supportive infrastructures and services. source of seeds is spoiled produce in the marketplace. On accessing land for UA, the municipality in Moreover, equipment and tools are usually designed for collaboration with relevant authorities such as CDA and rural agriculture and are seldom well suited to urban the Ministry in charge of land should survey and needs, smaller fields, and more intensive production. temporarily allocate the open spaces and any other There is a vast untapped global market for agricultural public land for UA. On the other hand, the municipality in supplies and equipment appropriate to urban farming. collaboration with CDA should enforce effectively the Italy and Japan produce special equipment for small- Master plan for Dodoma National Capital City that scale and urban farmers, but they are the exception recognizes UA as one of the urban land use. On rather than the rule. accessing water for UA, the municipality in collaboration with DUWASA and development partners should initiate innovations that will promote water use efficiency for UA. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS On the other hand, they should promote systems for rainwater collection and storage, construction of wells Evidence from this paper indicates that urban farmers are and the establishment of localized water efficient constrained by land tenure insecurity, erratic water irrigation systems (e.g. drip irrigation) in UA to stimulate access and inadequate inputs for optimizing UA production and to reduce the demand for potable water. productivity and profitability. There is need for urban The municipality of Dodoma in collaboration with

40 J. Afr. Stud. Dev.

development partners facilitates adequate supply of Magigi W (2008). Improving Urban Land Governance with Emphasis on inputs such as quality seeds, natural fertilizers and bio- Integrating Agriculture based Livelihoods in Spatial Land Use Planning Practise in Tanzania. A Thesis Submitted in Partial pesticides in small quantities to a well established Fulfilment of the Requirement for Higher Research Degree of Doctor network of urban farmers. of Natural Sciences of the Faculty of Forest and Environmental Sciences, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany. Mlozi M, Sofer M, Foeken D (2004). Sustainable urban agriculture in Conflict of Interests Tanzania: A study of two towns. Netherlands-Israel development research Programme (NIRP), Project . Pp. 97-10.1. 209.

Mlozi MRS (2001). The political economy of urban and peri-UA in The author have not declared any conflict of interests. eastern and southern Africa. In: Proceedings of the Political Economy of UA in Eastern and Southern African, 28 February to 2nd March 2001. Harare, Zimbabwe. Pp. 56 REFERENCES Mlozi MRS (2003). Legal policy aspects of urban agriculture in Tanzania, Urban Agriculture Magazine, 11:40 – 41. AL Hudhud HMK (2007). Urban Agriculture as Tool for City Planning, Mougeout L (2006). Growing Better Cities. Urban Agriculture for Nablus City As A case Study. A Thesis Submitted in partial Sustainable Development. Otawa: International Development Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Urban Research Center and Regional Planning, Faculty of Graduate Studies, at An-Najah Mubvami T, Mushamba S (2006). Integration of agriculture in urban National University, Nablus, Palestine. land use planning and adaptation of city regulations. In: R. van Arku G (2009) .Rapidly Growing African Cities Need to Adopt Smart Veenhuizen. Cities farming for the future: UA for green and Growth Policies to Solve Urban Problems. Urban Forum 20(3):253- productive cities. Leusden, RUAF /IDRC/IIRR. 270. Namwata BML (2013). Integration of Urban Agriculture in Urban Arku G, Mkandawire P, Aguda N, Kuuire V (2012). Africa’s Quest for Planning for Poverty Alleviation in Tanzania: A case of Dodoma Food Security: What is the Role of Urban Agriculture? the African Municipality. A Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF). Occasional p.19. for the Award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University Bailey KD (1994). Methods of Social Science Research. Fourth Edition. of Dodoma The Free Press. A division of Macmillan Inc. New York.p.588. Obuobie E, Danso G, Drechsel P (2003). Access to Land and Water for Dodoma Municipal Council (DMC) (2011). Socio Economic Profile for Urban Vegetable Farming in Accra. International Water Management Dodoma Municipality. Institute (IWMI). Drechsel P, Blumenthal UJ, Keraita B (2002). Balancing health and Oludare AH, Ademiluyi IA (2009). Urban agriculture and urban land use livelihoods: Adjusting wastewater irrigation guidelines for resource planning: Need for a synthesis in metropolitan Lagos, Nigeria. poor countries. Urban Agriculture Magazine 8: 7-9 Journal of Geography and Regional Planning March, 2009 Available Flynn-Dapaah K (2002). Land Negotiations and Tenure Relationships: online at http://www.academicjournals.org/JGRP. Accessed on June Accessing Land for Urban and Periurban Agriculture in Sub-Saharan 2010. 2(3):043-050. Africa. Cities Feeding Report Number. Pp. 36. Poate CD, Daplyn PF (1993). Data for Agrarian Development, Foeken D (2013). The Role of Urban Agriculture in the Development of Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Middle-sized Towns: Cases from East Africa. J. Geography and United Republic of Tanzania (URT) (2013). Population and Housing Regional Planning. June, 2013. ISSN 2070-1845 ©. Academic Census General Report, Government Printer, Dar Es Salaam. Journals: http://www.academicjournals.org/JGRP . Accessed July. Shillington LJ (2009). Complex ecologies and city spaces: social- 6(4): 17-131. ecological networks of urban agriculture. In Redwood, M. (ed). Foeken D, Sofer M, Mlozi M (2004). Urban agriculture in Tanzania- Agriculture in urban planning: Generating livelihoods and food Issues of sustainability. Research report 75/2004. Afri. Studies security. Ottawa: Earthscan and IDRC. Ch. 11: 201-216 Centre. pp.195 Smit J, Nasr J, Ratta A (2001). Urban Agriculture: Food Jobs and Jacobi J, Drescher A, Amend J (2000). UA: Justification and Planning Sustainable Cities. The United Nations Development Programme). Guidelines. Urban Vegetable Promotion Project. Published by City Farmer, Canada's Office of UA. Retrieved June 2008 from http://www.cityfarmer.org/uajustification.html Kyessi AG (2001). "Overview of Stakeholders/Institutions involved in Urban Agriculture: The case of Dar es Salaam", Paper Presented in a National Workshop on Urban Agriculture- Potential Support and Information Needs. 11th -13th June.